**Detailed Gun Hits** please vote as if you matter

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

This came up in another thread, but I thought I would post it here.

I wonder if detailed gun hits could be taken out of the Full FOW setting? Only BTS could answer the question : Is it feasable?

But any of you can answer whether or not you think it would make for better play.

I think detailed gun hit information should not be available in normal matches. Obviously you would not know if there was internal armor flaking in your enemy tank. In the same spirit of enemy TC kills being vague, I think it would lend more towards realistic player behavior if we didnt know.

How beautiful it is to hold piece of ground with a bogged defenseless defilade tank, while your opponent is none the wiser. (And rightly so!)

So sound off. For or against, and if you want, list compelling reasons one way or another. If you write anything other than yea or nay that ISN'T compelling, I will secretly resent you.

[This message has been edited by *Captain Foobar* (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Shandorf]

Maybe if the info was turned off for enemy tanks.

Also... you should know when you destroy a tank i.e. Explosion, crew bailing out...etc..

Jeff

[Guest ACTOR]

Well IMO I would like them taken out with Full FOW. I know when I see an AFV get a "Gun Hit" I turn my attention elsewhere. It may have been true, that you could see a damaged gun from some distance, but I am not familiar with the specifics associated with that. I am sure I could see if the main gun was severely damaged from some way off, assuming that it was deformed in some manner.

I too would like to hear from some of the more informed folks here, and see what they have to say.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Guys, as far as Im aware a 'Gun Hit' dosnt mean that gun is knocked out, it just means it has taken a hit along the same lines as say a upper hull hit.

Im not 100% sure but there may be occasions where the gun is reported to the opponent as damaged, and Ive seen many pictures where this would be easily visable...Ill try and find a couple.

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-05-2000).]

[DEF BUNGIS]

Well, maybe it should be taken out for over certain distances. Say, over 600 meters?

I would think if you hit an enemy tank under 500 Meters you would be able to tell what type of damage you did, Weather it be hull or turret penetration. And I would imagine you could see a richochet at that same disatnce.

Of course if it brews, you know for sure at almost any distance.

------------------

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

Who can give them back their lives, and all those wasted years.

[Mark IV]

I would prefer not to know so much.

I should know only what I can see.

That would include shot placement, but not internal effects.

Explosions and turret tilting, hell yeah. Internal flaking (wouldn't that cause casualties sometimes?) and gun hit- nope. It doesn't take much deformation of the tube- try any- to render the gun useless, and you couldn't necessarily spot it from any distance in battle.

Crew experience- definitely not.

Track hits are a gray area- whether they are shown or not, how would I know that an enemy tank is Immobilized, except by observing that it hasn't moved?

Gun and track damage can be highly visible, or virtually invisible, from a distance. If the gun was bent at 30 degrees, or I could see the track stretched out on the ground despite the ground cover, I guess I would know; but in a shooting war the subtler clues would go unnoticed, except for the beast's behavior.

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 09-05-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

well, see other thread (no, not THAT, not THE OTHER THREAD, I mean the other thread, where you got this from).

shooting from the hip, I'ld say I think gun hits should be shown with a certain low probability, ie, to reflect the rare times when a knocked-out gun would be obvious to the enemy gunner, such as when a direct hit tore the barel off.

So I'ld go with a probability of circa 90 % don't show 10 do show the gun hit.

BUT...and this is a big BUTT....

but there is the problem of detailed hit info.

obviously you need this, such as in "upper hull side hit", "turret rear hit", because sometimes you don't see the enemy shooting at you, but you can have a rough idea where it is coming from because you know from which general direction you are receiving fire.

since the gun is part of the frontal armor model, a hit to the gun is a hit to the gun. problem is that if this hit information is shown the enemy knows immediately that that gun will probably not work anymore.

three solutions to this:

1. let the gun hit simply show as "turret front hit" to the enemy

2. crap I forgot the second one (gotta go to bed), aaaanyways, the important one is:

3. come to think of it, why not simply switch off detailed armor hits. Because a tank crew that gets banged surely does take notice of that, but since it is nothing but a big CLANG they wouldn't really be able to tell where it hit, would they?

------------------

"Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

[yes I know I had to edit it but only because I double-pasted it...this didn't really add to the convincing power of the post so I deleted the superflous part again, OK ?]

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-05-2000).]

[rcentrone]

I'd rather know less about the enemy except that I did hit them. An option to turn that off would be nice but not absolutley necessary.

[Guest Madmatt]

You can, just turn off detailed Hit Text. If you see one of your tanks get popped turn it back on to view the damage. Not the most elegant solution but it works.

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

CMHQ-Annex

Host of the Combat Mission WebRing

[RudeLover]

Seems to me that I've seen the 'gun hit' message on an enemy tank only to have that very tank later spank me hard. Or was I hallucinating? A few 'false positives' would prevent the prudent tanker from discounting an AFV that's had a gun hit. Then if you get a gun hit and the bad guy slams 'er into reverse and disappears, you gotta wonder, is he hurt, or just sneaky?

[Wallybob]

Speaking as a former treadhead officer, when you kill a tank, you usually will know (as Oddball said "makes a pretty picture"). If you don't know, use Israeli Fire Control. That is, shoot it repeatedly until you see the above mentioned pretty picture. I'm all for detailed info of the kill. Call me morbid. I just like to know exactly what i did, versus seeing the column of smoke.

later,

Wallybob

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then if you get a gun hit and the bad guy slams 'er into reverse and disappears, you gotta wonder, is he hurt, or just sneaky?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no hold fire function. So if a damaged tank is retreating in LOS of your tank early in the turn, you just know he was hurt and limping(even without labels). Now you could go for the kill or take care of more important things right away.

[Chris Merchant]

I would like to see the addition of something similar to ASL's "unknown kill" rule - where the tank may not be visibly affected by a near miss or deflection, but inside the crew are stunned, shocked or in a state of panic etc..and to all intents and purposes the vehicle appears to be dead to the outside world.

But after a period of time there would be a chance that the tank would either magically come to life as the crew come to their senses, or suddenly be abandoned by a now broken crew... or perhaps continue to sit there longer.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Merchant:

I would like to see the addition of something similar to ASL's "unknown kill" rule - where the tank may not be visibly affected by a near miss or deflection, but inside the crew are stunned, shocked or in a state of panic etc..and to all intents and purposes the vehicle appears to be dead to the outside world.

But after a period of time there would be a chance that the tank would either magically come to life as the crew come to their senses, or suddenly be abandoned by a now broken crew... or perhaps continue to sit there longer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that's a great Idea

I prefer to increase the uncertainty factor.

I think dalem said it best when he states:

"

With all the threads started by folks around here clamoring for this and that and 'I think it should be this way' and 'I would do it that way', I'm glad to state 'holy crap I'll be in a snit if anything is done that decreases Fog Of War!'

I can do all the other crap that people seem to want in tons of other computer and table games - 100% hull down and don't shoot at this because it's not a valid target and roster my units for me and model these because twelve of them were made and I think they're cool and whatever else cranks people up.

What I cannot do in any of these games is be deceived or misled or honestly worried about

my flanks. The real groundbreaker of CM isn't the 3D modeling, it's the 'holy crap! what the

heck was THAT' factor.

CM isn't about fine control, it's about doing what you can with what you've got. Now that's a challenge.

-dale"

Right on Dale M !!!!

More Fog of war for this soldier thanks.

-tom w

[Hamstersss]

More FOW is always preferable to less FOW. However, I thought also that a gun hit didn't always mean a gun damaged. So, I must say, did one of my PBEM oponents, and I did get the chance to hold back an entire reinforced company and an armor platoon with a single immobilized, gun-damaged KT.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Vanir]

"Please vote as if you matter" ?? Me thinks we have been insulted

------------------

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Ah Vanir.... none of us matter TOO much in the overall scheme of things. No insult intended.

***BUT ALL YOU PEOPLE READ BEFORE POSTING FURTHER***

My political strategic focus in this question was to phrase it in a black or white way... K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid)

My question to you all is specifically IF you had a choice between

1) No damage details while in full FOW

2) Detailed hits as they stand

Which do you think would play more realistically, and in the spirit of this game?

Now I know it would be dandy to add all sorts of conditions "If within a certain range, If it is a gun hit, Perhaps a few false positives" BUT

I am trying to get a Bill through Congress here people. Don't attach riders to it..

Madmatt, the voluntary turn-off is an option, but as there is no way to force everyone to play "my" way, it is hard choice to put yourself at a disadvantage to your pbem opponent. I would rather try to convince people this one time, than have to do it every time I start a PBEM game.

I am currently of the opinion that choice #1 would be better. Choosing 1 or the other is probably the easiest thing to get through BTS Congress. I think that ALTHOUGH it would not address every possible battlefield condition, it would be an improvement.

So what would play better, 1 or 2?

[Guest KwazyDog]

Umm, how about Neither ?

Seriosuly though foobar, if its a choice Id personally prefer how it currently is as opposed to no info at all. To be honest I doubt it is something that will be changing in CM1 at this late stage anyways.

That being said though another idea may be FOW on actual vehicle hits (as I think someone mentioned above). For instance over long ranges hits might be simply side hit, frontal hit etc with any info with regards to bounced shot. Close in on the other hand should get more info such as front upper hull hit etc, more like it is now.

Not sure if this would be difficult to do though....

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-06-2000).]

[Shades]

I would prefer the additional FOW. Nothing worse than when your tanks are hit from across the map and your opponent knows he got a kill and moves onto the next nearby target without getting a brewed up vehicle.(personal experience)

Question: How would this affect the AI? Would the AI need to be tweaked so it doesn't keep shelling a vehicle because it doesn't know the poor thing's dead?

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Nah, I am only speaking of hits which leave an AFV immobilised or with a disabled gun. If they are dead, then you will be able to click on them and see that, regardless of any current fow setting

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shades:

Question: How would this affect the AI? Would the AI need to be tweaked so it doesn't keep shelling a vehicle because it doesn't know the poor thing's dead?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why shouldn't it keep shooting at a vehicle that it doesn't know is dead? That seems like perfectly realistic behavior to me.

Michael

[Guest KwazyDog]

"That seems like perfectly realistic behavior to me."

Indeed it does until you start to look at some of the complexities here Michael (which Charles passed onto me some time back when I was discussing it with him).

For instance, say a tank is taken out near the beginning of a turn, after say 50 seconds of the enemy not moving or firing should the Tac AI consider that tank dead, or keep firing? In reality its probably dead so should move on.

What if after 20 seconds the tank appears dead and there is another non threatening tank to target, keep firing at the first or target the second?

Another issue may be a new tank moving onto a busy battlefield...if there are 2 supposedly dead tanks and 2 alive which arent firing at that particular moment, which should he target ?

Anyways, thats just some of the complexities involved with allowing this level of FOW. As you can see, its not just a matter of not labeling tank as knocked out, but requires the take AI to decided which options to take and thus require extra coding. Something that Id say hasnt been ruled out totally, but not as easy as it sounds

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-06-2000).]

[Phoenix]

I think SOME detailed gun hits should be allowed to be "seen". I mean lets face it, there are likely to be *obvious* hits to a main gun that could be observed.

What I don't like is the instant message that a gun was damaged. Seems I automatically know this no matter what the range.

Can BTS clarify?

As to Madmatt's idea, well, that doesn't address the problem for PBEM.

[M Hofbauer]

as to Madmatt's suggestion and the various replies to it re. its inapplicability to PBEM games:

why not have this "Detailed Hits ON/OFF" as part of the QB setup choices?

seems the simplest solution to me - makes everybody happy with the least amount of change necessary to the game.

------------------

"Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

[Fred]

As this is a vote,I say

leave it the way it is.

I like some feedback from the game engine.

For those that don't like it, switch the option to OFF.

It is already implemented, so no need to change the code.

For PBEM, just agree before what options to use and what not.

Fred

------------------

"I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission